ShareThis Page
Saturday essay: Grand delusions |

Saturday essay: Grand delusions

| Friday, April 25, 2014 8:57 p.m

Things are not always as they seem. Take, for instance, public rail transportation and its touted nexus to economic development and growth.

Passenger rail is making new inroads in many parts of the country. Two of the newest lines are SunRail in the Orlando area, a heavy rail system, and a light-rail system in Washington, D.C., akin to Pittsburgh’s trolley system.

The first phase of SunRail is supposed to bow in Central Florida next Thursday. And when the second phase is complete in 2016, the $1 billion line will run more than 60 miles (but not to any Disney/Universal attractions).

In the nation’s capital, the trolley along the H Street retail corridor is scheduled to debut this summer, the first of eight lines citywide running 22 miles and another billion bucks. The H Street line alone is costing about $135 million.

Proponents typically shill for such pricey public rail lines as being wonderful economic generators. The overall experience in Pittsburgh, however, debunks that notion. And more and more research suggests that the only economic boon is for developers, who are enticed to build along these rail corridors with heavy public subsidies — a necessity to make the central planners’ dream of “transit-oriented development” come true.

It’s all a grand delusion for which taxpayers repeatedly are molested — and for either de minimis or negative economic consequences to boot.

— Colin McNickle

Categories: Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.